Howard's ploy no shield for Crean

March 2 2003

Struggling with the Iraq debate, the PM seized on North Korea and missile defence to whack Labor, writes Michelle Grattan.

Before the Howard Government released its 2000 Defence White Paper, officials travelled the region extensively to brief Asian countries, calling in on Indonesia, Singapore, Malaysia, Japan, South Korea, China and Thailand (as well as New Zealand).

There was nothing like this before the Government unveiled its "Defence Update 2003" last week. Only Indonesia had advance advice, given in Jakarta. Attaches from other regional countries were informed in Canberra that the paper was coming, but the details given to them were thin.

Official sources explain this by saying this document is much "lower key" than the 2000 paper. But the difference in laying the groundwork for it reflects the contrast in how the region is treated in the two documents.

The Howard Government no longer hides its feelings. "Defence Update 2003" confirms a natural inclination, which has hardened since September 11, 2001, for the Government to be dismissive of the region, as loyalty to the US alliance and its needs becomes such an overwhelming pivot.

This is despite what some analysts see as the reality that the weight of Australia's defence capability will likely remain focused close to home. The Government envisages helping American-led coalitions as the way of the future - and the review says changes are needed to get "a more flexible and mobile force" - but what is to be given is strictly "niche". ");document.write("

advertisement

");
}
}
// -->

In 2000, the Government's language was deliberately diplomatic; this time, it is blunt. The review's headline for the relevant section is "A Troubled Region"; the sub-section assessing South-East Asia is harshly worded.

While the update says the Government is "strongly committed to progressing a broad-based relationship with Indonesia", it comes close to being scathing in its assessment of the region in general.

"Existing political and leadership weaknesses, combined with declining governance standards, increase the vulnerability of some regional governments even before the additional challenges of dealing with terrorism and its economic effects.

"In some South-East Asian countries, these economic factors combine with the misperception that the War on Terror targets Muslims to produce defensive, nationalistic reactions." These are sweeping generalisations, which some countries could legitimately resent.

In 2000, the White Paper acknowledged serious problems but was softer and more encouraging in its terminology.

It was the week of tough talk. Hard on the heels of the in-your-face language of the strategic review came the Prime Minister's exploitation, for blatant domestic political reasons, of the North Korea crisis.

It was predictable the media would grab on to what the update said about Australia continuing its "close dialogue" with the US on missile defence, the so-called "son of Star Wars".

The experts insist it does not go beyond what the Government has indicated before. By the time John Howard had finished with it, however, we had moved right on - to a scenario where Australia needed to look at missile defence because it faced the risk of a North Korean attack.

When Labor spoke out against Australia becoming involved in a missile defence system, the PM clearly judged the opportunity too good to miss.

Howard is facing a serious peace backlash to his "all the way" support for the Americans on Iraq. Many Australians find it hard to comprehend why Australia would wish to fight a war against a country so far away, and unconnected with us (except as a useful wheat market).

Here was a chance to portray his Government as the strong protector of the nation, using a threat - in the highly unlikely event that it ever materialised - that would be a direct one to the Australian mainland.

"We haven't made any commitment (to missile defence), we don't know whether it's achievable," Howard declared on radio. "But surely if we are concerned about North Korea - and we have reason to be concerned about North Korea - our first responsibility is to investigate ways of protecting Australia against dangerous behaviour by North Korea.

"I am amazed that the Labor Party is against us doing even that . . . I am just flabbergasted because we are dealing here with the defence of Australia."

Never mind that the Government earlier had been playing down the direct danger from North Korea, as it concentrated on the quest for a diplomatic solution.

Unsurprisingly, the Government's reiteration of an interest in missile defence drew sharp comments from China. But Howard had his attention firmly on the domestic audience.

It was a close call as to which was worse, the PM's shameless talking up of fears about North Korea to score a local point or Simon Crean's lamentable ignorance about how missile defence worked.

The debate following the strategic update has reinforced the impression that Simon Crean easily becomes flaky on foreign policy/defence issues.

When the Opposition Leader called a news conference on the strategic update and condemned Australia's interest in a US missile defence system, one would have thought he would have got himself fully across the facts.

But no. First he said the "solution (to a North Korea threat) that the Prime Minister is suggesting we look at only protects the US coastline". This was obviously nonsense. Howard is talking about a system that would also give protection to Australia.

Pressed, Crean then asked rhetorically, "Is this what he's suggesting, that our approach in terms of dealing with North Korea is to build a shield, including nuclear weapons placed on Australian soil?"

The system being canvassed is one of conventional, not nuclear, weapons. The explanation from the Crean office was that the 1980s Star Wars version had nuclear weapons. That's not an excuse for failing to know the details of the current one.

No wonder Howard had his foreign affairs adviser Miles Jordana comb through Crean's news conference, so the PM could put down some lines for Friday's AM, when he attacked Crean's "ignorance".

Crean also got a burst of friendly fire, when former leader and one-time Labor defence Minister Kim Beazley had an outing on Lateline. Beazley's critics say he took a long time to make his points, but he sounded as if he knew what he was talking about.

With international affairs and defence now at the sharp end of the federal political debate - to say nothing of some people in Labor trying to talk up a Beazley comeback - Crean cannot afford lapses. He will never be as at home in foreign policy as he is on domestic policy, but mistakes are another matter - they show again failure in his office to ensure he is prepared.

North Korea will stay in the limelight but it is Iraq that is about to come to a crunch internationally and for the Howard Government (and Labor).

Iraq is giving ground inch by inch. But with the Bush Administration set on toppling Saddam Hussein, whatever it does is not going to be enough. Bush is already canvassing Iraq's future under a new regime.

On the other hand, whatever limited progress is made tends to reinforce the Security Council critics of the American-British hard line in their view that a quick resort to war is undesirable.

The deeper the divisions become, the less chance of the second Security Council resolution now proposed being passed without a veto. If it did get through without France or Russia negating it, it would be only by dint of the most extraordinary strongarming.

Chief weapons inspector Hans Blix has circulated his latest report to the Security Council. It criticises Iraq for not doing a lot more. But he has left the way open for updating this report before he addresses the Security Council late this week. "The Iraqis are at the present time very active," he told reporters.

With its constant twists and turns, the Iraq crisis unfolds like a thriller story, but the American determination remains a constant.

For Howard, Saddam apparently being prepared to destroy missile and make other, albeit incremental, gestures will just add to the questions in a sceptical public's mind. Why the urgency to attack while something positive is happening, even if small?

Howard knows that when D-day comes, the true answer will be, "because the Americans say it's time". That will be a hard argument to sell, whatever the hype about terrorism and rogue states, if the peacekeepers have not hit a brick wall and the UN declines to give the go ahead.